This is something that's been on my mind quite a bit. As an Indian who grew up mostly in the Middle East watching American TV shows (where I got much of my "culture"), I have some thoughts on this.

When I speak to American friends (especially as part of a larger group), I get many of the pop culture and other references which my Indian friends sometimes miss. I however, feel left out when I speak to some Indians because I don't get or appreciate many local idioms since I was never exposed to them. This can be isolating at times and I'm trying to make amends but that can be harder as you grow older.

I think that the best way to do it is to have deep roots in ones own culture (which is why they - especially the fragile ones - should be preserved) and then have a liberal education which opens your mind to external ideas. This comes from reading literatures of other peoples, languages, poetry, history etc. much more than a more "scientific" education that emphasises logic, problem solving, analytical skills etc. One of the reasons I bemoan the lack of emphasis on the humanities in primary education and am trying to compensate for this with my own children.

Having a deep understanding of ones own culture keeps one relaxed with it. No insecurity and resistant to attempts to appropriate it for political mileage. It also creates a sense of "being" and a "home" to come back to when you've had a bad day rather than lashing out.

Being open minded about others makes you receptive to people's ideas drastically different from your own and gives you the tools to assimilate them or parts of them into your own world view.

My own background has made me a cultural nomad of sorts. I don't feel any pride when I talk about any facet of my identity but I do miss having a deep historical well to draw inspiration and ideas from. A desire to be a link in a longer chain.

> Frequently, the people of "X immigrant culture" care a lot about 'preserving their heritage', because it's a constant struggle for them

A friend of mine who is a first generation Indian immigrant observed exactly same thing. He noticed his conservative Indian parents had become more extreme in their beliefs over time, as a sort of reaction against American culture. His parents feel a bit closed off from the rest of American society since they never fully integrated. However, simultaneously, he noticed that when he went to India, people there were actually becoming more liberal and tolerant over time, as compared to his parents who were becoming more traditional.

A very interesting phenomenon.

Yes, this has been observed many times here in Europe. People that come to a new culture they hated suddenly find themselves in a spot where the food and culture from the homecountry is more important than it ever was when they lived back home. Even germans start importing stuff to Sweden because that sausage they always hated back home is so much better than anything they can buy here in Sweden. And people that never cooked before start searching for ways to recreate the tastes from grandmas cooking.

People from cultures that wear something over the head does so much more in the new country while the home country is starting to loosen up. Even though this is exactly why they moved away in the first place.

(We have friends from Somalia, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and then some, that describe this for us)

Should probably add that this is typical for swedish people moving out of country too. Just look at the spanish walled gardens that swedes build up around them when they move to Spain after retirement :-)

Same happens with many immigrants in USA and Germany who came from Russia. They tend to become more conservative and have very different views from citizens of Moscow or St.Petersburg.

Pretty sure Indians in India do not have just one culture either...

It's pretty clear that the "one" was comparative to the "one" celebrated by the diaspora, rather than "one" to tie all Indian cultures together.

It wasn't really stated that this was the case, just that cultures diverge when they emigrate..

I'm fairly certain all they meant to communicate was that Indians in India have different types of Indian culture to Indians in Britain, and that they weren't trying to reduce all of India to a singular culture.

Often your culture isn't apparent and to you at all until you have extended exposure to another one.

And even then, it's hard to pin down.

I, for one, notice that Australians are quite different from Americans and Brits. And of course even more so from the multitude of Asian, South American and European cultures.

But I don't think there is one 'single' Australian culture that is sufficiently different from an Australian-immigrant culture.

I think you have the wrong take-away from that sentence. The point was not to imply a singular origin country culture, but that the source culture and the immigrant culture end up diverging to some degree.

Whether the origin country has a singular culture of many subcultures is really irrelevant to that point. It's just a matter of whether the immigrant culture diverges from the source subculture.

India has 4 distinct cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_politics and the current status is http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ino3tfMYVsd6VVGUdWXB8H/The-...